ALLAN GUACENA v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 228031. January 18, 2017.
SECOND DIVISION

Pacificador, accompanied by a certain Balgoa, met Guacena

to buy shabu. Months later, he received a call from Guacena
asking him if he wanted to buy shabu, to which he agreed.
Before leaving his house, however, Pacificador changed his mind.
Still, he proceeded to meet Guacena to tell him that he would
stop buying shabu. Upon arrival, he saw Guacena and rolled
down the window. Without any warning, Guacena fired his gun at
Pacificador, hitting the latter in his right arm, right chest, right
side of the abdomen, and between his left index and middle
finger.

Is Guacena guilty of the crime of frustrated murder?

Yes. The elements of frustrated murder are: (1) the

accused intended to kill his victim; (2) the victim sustained fatal
or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical
assistance; and (3) any of the qualifying circumstances for
murder under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended, is present.
First, the nature and number of wounds inflicted upon Pacificador
demonstrated that Guacena intended to kill him. Second, the
injuries suffered by Pacificador would have resulted in his death
were it not for the timely medical intervention given to him.
Finally, the commission of the crime was attended by the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is
that the attack was deliberate and without warning, done in a
swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62528?
s_params=ckihXkutF4sNpuhgsKb4